
SD 

565 



I Ms 



OREGON STAT:^; COl^rSERVATION 

coMnssioH 

State va, National Control 
of Public Porests, 




Glass Sj)5'6b 

Book JM- 



pg aMis?g3i 



State »^* National Control 
of Public Forests 

FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A 
WESTERN STATE 

BY THE 

Oregon State Conservation Commission 

Appointed by the Governor under Act of Legislature 
creating said commission to ^' set forth the condition 
of the natural resources of the state, together with 
such recommendations for legislation as may he 
deemed advisable, or other means of protecting or 
promoting the development and use of the same." 



'It would seem that everyone except those 
directly interested in profiting thereby has 
all to lose and nothing to gain by a trans- 
fer from nation to state. In our opinion 
the proposition is wrong in principle and 
would be disastrous in results." 



PORTLAND, OREGON 

1913 



^l!f¥?f^y\i?f^ff^yffriBr>ty^irrK[?riTff^t7^ryrtt^ 



^ 






0. OF D. 

^EP iS 1913 




STATE vs. NATIONAL CONTROL 
OF PUBLIC FORESTS 

OR some time it has been apparent that a deter- 
mined effort will be made to turn the national 
forests over to the respective states within 
whose borders they lie. Although at present 
private ownership of the national forests is not 
being made the issue, it is obvious that while this may not be 
the purpose of some, the result would be none the less certain. 
s. With the expense of maintenance and protection involved, the 
enormous stake at issue, the opportunity for manipulating state 
politics and playing upon the pride, greed and selfishness of 
those believing they will in some way be personal gainers 
thereby, we but delude ourselves in thinking these things are 
being overlooked and that the underlying purpose of those who 
originated this movement is not to eliminate all public control 
and replace it with monopolistic ownership. 

While the issue as presented on its face is state vs. national 
control, and not the elimination of public ownership, it may be 
accepted as a fact that if the first step is taken the second will 
surely follow. 

A large part of Oregon is included in national forests. It 
is one of the public land states, is vitally interested in the 
proper disposition of the public lands and is profoundly 
affected by their administration. The future development of 
the state in a large measure depends upon the use of its natural 
resources. Being thus situated, the Oregon State Conservation 
Commission is impelled by a sense of its duty and the obligation 
it owes the public to present, as briefly as may be, its views 
upon this most important question. 



Objects of Public Control 

EVERY good citizen believes that in all such questions the 
interest of the general public is primary, and that the 
real object to be secured in the handling of public 
resources is to bring about their widest and best use while at 
the same time giving the amplest range of opportunity for 
self-help and individual efi'ort. All will agree that monopolistic 
ownership and individual control of the necessaries of life or 
public functions is not to be desired. 

At the present time, as the majority of those who favor 
state control concede, the forests should remain public prop- 
erty. The issue as now presented is state vs. national control. 
In order to pass upon this issue understandingly, certain funda- 
mental principles should be recalled and certain facts stated. 

The national forests are the property of the nation. As to 
this there is no question. If the nation is called upon to give 
outright this vast property (vast and valuable both actually 
and potentially) to the states, then the burden is surely on the 
state to show how this great trust is to be administered, so that 
those for whom it is granted will be better, or even as well, 
protected than they now are in their rights in and to it. 

The suggestion often advanced that other states have 
enjoyed properties of a similar nature and wasted or misused 
them, and therefore that we should be permitted to follow the 
same course if we so desire, does not seem to us very conclusive. 
The contrary would seem taught by their experience. The 
direct effect of the forests on water supply and use is recognized 
as a fact and is considered a proper subject of national juris- 
diction and control. In consequence, in some of the very states 
which so unwisely used their forests, the national government 
is now expending large sums from the national treasury to 
restore the forest growth on the blasted slopes of their moun- 
tain sides. The course wisdom and foresight would have 
prescribed was to prevent the total destruction of the forests 
and at the same time not only maintain a constant timber 
supply, but a protected stream flow as well. 

2 



Functions Not Bounded by State Lines 

FROM a national standpoint these public forests fill otlier 
functions than merely to furnish lumber and other tim- 
ber products — functions and uses which extend far 
beyond state lines and involve the welfare of many people. 
They cover and protect the headwaters of streams used for 
navigation, irrigation and power. They prevent or minimize 
constantly recurring disastrous floods, which know not state 
lines. They retard soil erosion and in many ways have a 
direct effect upon natural conditions of the greatest conse- 
quence. The timber supply of the future for all the people, not 
of any particular state, is nation-wide in its importance, and the 
continuity of its production a national problem. Natural condi- 
tions for maintaining the timber growth and supply not being 
equally favorable, those states not able to supply their own 
wants must depend on the sections peculiarly adapted therefor 
to supply the same. The foregoing propositions will not be 
seriously controverted. 

The national forests are now under the control of the fed- 
eral government and the expense of their protection, amounting 
to about $4,000,000 a year, is paid from the nation's treasury. 
In Oregon alone there is expended in this work about $480,000 
a year, an amount nearly one-sixth as great as the state's total 
expenditures for all governmental purposes. This figure does 
not include sums expended in actual fire-fighting, which in 
destructive fire seasons such as of 1910 and 1911 amounts to 
$75,000 to $112,000 additional. Fires and accompanying losses 
and disasters are not confined to state lines. This dread de- 
stroyer knows neither geographical lines nor governmental 
divisions. 

Would Cost the State Too Much 

FORTUNATELY Oregon has recognized both the value of 
this great asset and its obligation towards it and, as it 
should, works in the closest co-operation with federal 
agencies and private owners. Happily there are but few who 

3 



do not recognize the enormous present and future value of the 
forests. But is it a matter of doubt that the state would fail in 
its care and protection should the entire burden be cast upon it? 
Such a course would inevitably lead to but one result: the dis- 
memberment of the forests. 

The Forest Service also conducts studies and experiments 
as to the use and cultivation of woods, the production of by- 
products, etc., which have been of enormous value to the public 
as well as to the lumber industries. Other collateral activities 
are also under its control. We but refer to the roads, trails, 
telephone lines, etc., built and maintained as measures for pro- 
tection against fire. Reforestation of denuded areas and better 
stocking of other portions involve additional present burdens. 

On account of the location of the national forests, cost of 
protection is certain to exceed income for years to come. Not- 
withstanding this fact, there is paid to the state and counties 
for road and school purposes in the counties where sales are 
made, 35 per cent of the gross receipts from all sales of timber. 
While this is not now a large sum (amounting in Oregon last 
year to about $60,000), it will constantly increase and be a 
source of perpetual revenue to the state. 

The Fallacious Tax Argument 

THIS naturally brings up the question of taxation and the 
alleged loss of taxes to the state by reason of the national 
forest being nontaxable. This is a favorite argument of 
those who do not believe in public ownership of the forests. 
It is largely fallacious. If the state owned the forests they 
would not be taxable, which in the present aspect of the case 
would be a sufficient answer. Moreover, the taxable value of 
forests in remote uninhabited regions or summits of mountain 
ranges would be very problematical, and, in our opinion, elim- 
inating the undesirability of turning the forests over to private 
ownership, the perpetual income the state will eventually 
receive from sales of stumpage would far exceed any amount 
that could probably be received from taxes. Moreover, as we 

4 



have stated, the tax argument is based on private ownership, 
a proposition now openly advocated by but few and not in- 
volved in this discussion. 

State's Real Interest 

"^ "TT^ T^HAT is the state's real interest in the national 
\/ \/ forests and their administration? In conservation 
^ ^ and use for all purposes. Every foot of land avail- 
able for settlement and home making should be open to 
settlers. Every encouragement should be given the settler. The 
use of resources of every kind within the national forests should 
be promoted. The sheep and cattle man, the mining pros- 
pector, the engineer looking for power to develop and use, all 
should be encouraged. In other words, the interest of the state 
lies in use. However, to secure this condition does not require 
a change of ownership or abandonment of public control. On 
the contrary, conditions favoring the largest use in every form, 
represent both the purpose of the law and the policy of the 
agricultural department. 

State Has the Best Of It Now 

INDEED from a practical standpoint the state today is in a 
better position than if it owned the forests. The protection 
of the forests is paid for by the federal government, and 
the state receives 35 per cent of the gross revenue. The experi- 
ments and studies as to use, etc., of which we receive the 
benefit, are carried on by the government. Not a tree can be 
felled and transformed into lumber without leaving 80 per cent 
of the receipts in the hands of labor and those furnishing 
supplies. Is it to be assumed the state's management would be 
more efficient, less expensive, and more satisfactory than that 
of the Forest Service? Or would the result be that which is 
desired by some — dissatisfaction, criticism, and finally sale, 
and the public forest gone forever? Are not private forest 
lands now held in few enough hands, or can it be the desire to 
make the monopoly complete and have this necessity of life 

5 



entirely under the private control of the favored few? This 
great public resource is now owned by the public, and it should 
always be held, used and controlled in the interest of the 
public. 

Agricultural Lands 

BEFORE taking up other aspects of the question we pre- 
sent certain figures which may prove of interest. A 
vast section of this state is within the national forests. 
The net acreage is 13,658,679. The true significance of the 
figures can not be apprehended without some analysis. Gen- 
erally the figures are thrown out without explanation as indi- 
cating enormous withdrawal of tillable or habitable lands that 
would otherwise be settled. 

Speaking generally the forest area is confined to the moun- 
tainous regions of the Cascades, Coast Range and Rlue Moun- 
tains, the highest and most inaccessible regions of the state. 
The great percentage is as yet far removed from transportation 
facilities. Approximately 43 per cent of this area is at an alti- 
ture of more than 5000 feet above sea level, about 171/2 per cent 
4000 to 5000 feet above sea level, and about 9 per cent 3000 to 
4000 feet above sea level. These facts are of great significance 
in considering this question. As to much of this area the sur- 
face is so broken and the slopes so steep as to make cultivation 
out of the question. On these mountains the forests stand as 
guardians of our water sheds affecting not only this state but 
other states as well, a matter of direct concern to the well-being 
of every citizen now living or hereafter to live in the vast 
domain protected by them. 

There are, however, lands within the national forests 
which should be restored for settement and will be in the 
immediate future. But will it be urged this purely adminis- 
trative question, or irritating rules or acts of too zealous subor- 
dinates furnish an excuse for abandoning the public forests 
and turning over the heritage of all to enrich the few? Such 
matters are easily remedied. 

6 



We should not allow ourselves to be misled by a false hue 
and cry. The experience with the Olympic National Forest 
in Washington is still fresh in mind. In 1901, under an insist- 
ent demand to throw a portion open to settlement, 705,600 acres 
were released. In ten years, 526,520 acres were in the hands 
of private owners holding it for its timber. Over 178,000 acres 
were included in five holdings, and one man owned 81,630 
acres. Of the area originally timbered it is said on authority 
"only about 600 acres are under cultivation." It is not to be 
doubted that the purposes of those starting and maintaining 
the agitation were entirely accomplished. 

The Commission's Conclusions 

THIS Commission does not wish its position misunder- 
stood. From a selfish standpoint, if from no higher 
motive, as citizens of this state directly interested in its 
speedy development, it favors the widest and wisest use of our 
natural resources. It believes all agricultural land should be 
open to the settler, and every encouragement given the pros- 
pector. It believes in maintaining in every possible way the 
greatest possible opportunity to the individual striving to bet- 
ter his condition. To do this, we do not believe the interest of 
the public should be deliberately sacrificed under the guise of 
development or under the temptation for immediate personal 
gain. The forests are a public asset, a public resource. ' They 
fill a function in nature's plan, that necessarily not only now 
but always will be important in the orderly and growing life 
of our nation. They will not only serve, if conserved, to fur- 
nish forever a never failing source of supply of lumber, but 
under God's providence serve even more useful purposes in 
other directions. 

The sole question is what agency will best secure results? 
The forests are as national as the rivers they help maintain, 
and as broad in their influence as the plains for which they 
store the life giving water. It would seem that every one 
except those directly interested in profiting thereby has all to 
lose and nothing to gain by a transfer from nation to state. 

7 



In our opinion the proposition is wrong in principle and 
would be disastrous in results. The time may come when such 
a step may be justifiable and proper, but this is an eventuality 
not necessary now to discuss. 

This Commission would fail in its duty and be unfaithful 
to the trust imposed in it did it not defend this heritage of all 
the people against any attempt, no matter how well meaning, 
for its spoliation. In the interests of the whole people we 
submit that this great resource should remain public property, 
used and controlled in the interest of the public, and all who 
believe this should resist all attempts in whatever guise they 
appear, to transfer the national forests to the states, as the first 
step towards a complete private monopoly of the forests, and 
the first gun of a direct attack upon true conservation. 

(Mrs.) Josephine Hirsch, 

B. F. Irvine, 
F. G. Young, 
Fred. F. Henshaw, 

C. B. Watson, 
William Pollman, 
Joseph N. Teal, Chairman. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 821 366 9 



